Yeah, you big farking pussy, that dog was going to kill you. That mix of 3 of the most friendly breeds was about to rip your throat out. You were totally justified. Because you're a big farking pussy that gets to carry guns.

Hoban Washburne:Yeah, you big farking pussy, that dog was going to kill you. That mix of 3 of the most friendly breeds was about to rip your throat out. You were totally justified. Because you're a big farking pussy that gets to carry guns.

That's the other thread where we hate our government and it's armed lackeys.

Hoban Washburne:Yeah, you big farking pussy, that dog was going to kill you. That mix of 3 of the most friendly breeds was about to rip your throat out. You were totally justified. Because you're a big farking pussy that gets to carry guns.

Ignoring the fact we've already discussed this on Fark because it's old news...

STFU, George. You don't need all that overwrought, emotional prose to talk about a law virtually nobody in this country outside of law enforcement is in favor of anyway. Liberals and conservatives both already dislike it. Who do you think you're trying to convince with all that excess handwringing and emotional pap?

Basically, although they already got their money back, a civil rights law firm is continuing to sue the government for the principle of the thing. It's possible George Will (being an old man without my Google-fu powers) was only aware of the current, ongoing lawsuit.

skozlaw:Ignoring the fact we've already discussed this on Fark because it's old news...

STFU, George. You don't need all that overwrought, emotional prose to talk about a law virtually nobody in this country outside of law enforcement is in favor of anyway. Liberals and conservatives both already dislike it. Who do you think you're trying to convince with all that excess handwringing and emotional pap?

Dancin_In_Anson:Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

Bothers the Hell out of me, and civil forfeiture laws should all be wiped off the books.

It's still, at an absolute minimum, somewhat intellectually dishonest of Will to not mention that the guy got all his cash back. In trying to maximize his readers' outrage, he was either shoddy in his research or deceptive in his writing.

That has nothing to do with the politics or the merits of the case. Just a statement on the lack of journalistic integrity on display.

Lorelle:ginandbacon: This story is not just old, it's so old the guy got his money back 2 months after it was seized.

How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

"In what it probably considered an act of unmerited mercy, the IRS offered to return 20 percent of Terry's money. Such extortion - pocketing others people's money - often succeeds when the IRS bullies bewildered people not represented by IJ, which forced the government to return all of Terry's and the gas station owner's money."

You know, before we get all harrumph about this issue we should recognize that there are two sides to every story. The IRS isn't going around stealing people's stuff just for the hell of it.They probably legitimately thought there was an issue here and made a mistake.

sigdiamond2000:Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

It does. You should read the New Yorker story if you really want to be outraged.

This guy got off easy. So easy, in fact, that it doesn't even really make sense to mention it in the context of other much more heinous abuses.

In Will's defense, he does link to it, but this particular story is the one he chooses to focus on?

Will won't write a column on the New Yorker case because that is local law enforcement abusing their powers. He only wants to focus on federal overreach. And by making it about the IRS he can try and bring up memories of Issa's witchhunts.

dsmith42:sigdiamond2000: Dancin_In_Anson: Lorelle: How nice of Will to bring it up nearly six months later and not mention the actual outcome of the case.

The fact that it even happened at all should bother you.

It does. You should read the New Yorker story if you really want to be outraged.

This guy got off easy. So easy, in fact, that it doesn't even really make sense to mention it in the context of other much more heinous abuses.

In Will's defense, he does link to it, but this particular story is the one he chooses to focus on?

Will won't write a column on the New Yorker case because that is local law enforcement abusing their powers. He only wants to focus on federal overreach. And by making it about the IRS he can try and bring up memories of Issa's witchhunts.

I was wondering about that... I usually see civil forfeiture associated with police departments, not with the feds. Didn't know the IRS had those kinds of powers. Also, wouldn't this usually be exercised by an agency investigating the subjects, like the FBI or the Secret Service, instead of the IRS?

In the context of an op ed focused on emotional pandering over an event that was resolved months ago to a conclusion the mentioned op ed doesn't even bother to state?

No.

This is where you are wrong. As Dimensio noted up thread, the conclusion is mentioned in the article. And cases like this need to be discussed frequently for those of us that don't regularly abuse ourselves by reading up on IRS outrages. So, it happened in 2012 or 2013, and got resolved with outside intervention fairly quickly? Good, and now that we all know about the IJ group, if another example of these IRS over-reach starts, we will know who to contact for help.

skozlaw:Ignoring the fact we've already discussed this on Fark because it's old news...

STFU, George. You don't need all that overwrought, emotional prose to talk about a law virtually nobody in this country outside of law enforcement is in favor of anyway. Liberals and conservatives both already dislike it. Who do you think you're trying to convince with all that excess handwringing and emotional pap?

Yeah, we've said we don't like it, what more can anyone do? Let's head on over to the next shiny objectoutrage.

Most of the time they're stealing money from people who actually are drug dealers and money launderers, so there's no outrage. Nothing ever gets done because this is one of those situations where people only seem to care when they target the occasional innocent victim even though it really ought to just be illegal across the board.

skozlaw:cherryl taggart: ...if another example of these IRS over-reach starts...

If?

Most of the time they're stealing money from people who actually are drug dealers and money launderers, so there's no outrage. Nothing ever gets done because this is one of those situations where people only seem to care when they target the occasional innocent victim even though it really ought to just be illegal across the board.

So, you seem just fine with the fact that now the IRS can just seize someone's assets with no prior notice and then make them come into court where they have to prove they are not guilty of illegal activity to get it back?

Dancin_In_Anson:Russ1642: You guys made your bed by electing the nutjobs that created the legislation. Now sleep in it. Feel safe from terrists?

This goes back much further than 2001.

The part about the IRS requiring banks to report transactions over $10k in cash is (IIRC) older than 2001. The part about banks being required to notify the IRS of a pattern of sub-$10k deposits is (IIRC) not, and is part of a raft of banking rules passed as part of PATRIOT.

cameroncrazy1984:Yeah, it really bothers me that people at the IRS are human and screw up.

This is what has some folks so upset:

Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The humans screwups of the IRS would be greatly ameliorated by the constitution, if we had one.

Most of the time they're stealing money from people who actually are drug dealers and money launderers, so there's no outrage. Nothing ever gets done because this is one of those situations where people only seem to care when they target the occasional innocent victim even though it really ought to just be illegal across the board.

So, you seem just fine with the fact that now the IRS can just seize someone's assets with no prior notice and then make them come into court where they have to prove they are not guilty of illegal activity to get it back?

I read it as he thinks it should be outrageous regardless of whether the person who is having their assets seized is a drug dealer or not. They shouldn't be able to seize your assets when you haven't been convicted of any crime. Their belief that you're a drug dealer, even if you ARE in fact a drug dealer, should not be enough.

Nabb1:So, you seem just fine with the fact that now the IRS can just seize someone's assets with no prior notice and then make them come into court where they have to prove they are not guilty of illegal activity to get it back?

Um. Yea. I guess. If by what you said you mean the exact opposite of everything you said.